Extraordinary Evidence: Homeopathy’s Best Research

There have been hundreds of research studies on homeopathy with positive results. Rather than make you slog through a list of them, we’ll show you the ten most amazing and convincing. (And it was
a tough choice… ADHD and eczema were a close 11th and 12th.) If you hear someone say there is no scientific evidence for homeopathy, please share with them this jaw-dropping collection.﻿

“Statistical procedures show similar total practice costs for CAM and COM, with the exception of homeopathy with 15.4% lower costs than COM” (emphasis added). Western governments
struggling with spiralling health-care costs, take note…!

This was the largest-scale ever homeopathic study, involving 2.3 million patients in parts of Cuba, who were given two doses of a homeopathic remedy as a preventative to the hurricane-triggered
disease. The infection rate for leptospirosis dropped to near zero, for a cost that was a small fraction of what they had been paying for vaccination. Cuba now uses the homeopathic protocol with
its entire population (Bracho, Gustavo, personal communication).

Currently, they’re working on another study on upper respiratory infections, with nine million(9,000,000) people. Stay tuned.

–

3.The meta-meta: looking at all the studies

A meta-analysis is a study of studies, a totaling of results reached in a group of them. The Faculty of Homeopathy did a meta-meta-analysis, and found: “Four of five major comprehensive reviews of RCTs in
homeopathy have reached broadly positive conclusions. Based on a smaller selection of trials, a fifth review came to a negative conclusion about homeopathy.”

Frenkel, M. et al. Cytotoxic
effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells International Journal of Oncology 2010 Feb;36(2):395-403. Conclusion: Four homeopathic remedies caused death of breast cancer
cell lines in the laboratory, similar to the effect of chemotherapy, but without affecting normal cells. Authors suggest more research. We suggest lots more research.

This comparative cohort study, involving more than 1,500 patients in primary care practices of at least 6 different European countries, concludes that homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory
and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment. But look at this little graph:

“Figure 3: Onset of improvement within the first week. Onset of improvement within the first week of treatment (cumulative percentages of patients that experienced their first improvement).”
Homeopaths already knew this.

Frass et al., Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients
CHEST March 2005 vol. 127 no. 3 936-941. You’re breathing on your own now. They want to pull the breathing tube out, but it’s stuck due to stringy stuff in your trachea. This study shows that
they’ll be able to do it faster if they give you some Kali bichromicum 30C, which, again, homeopaths already knew. Several other hospitals, by the way, are currently working on
replicating this study.

The authors took 110 placebo-controlled studies of homeopathy, and concluded that homeopathy has no more effect than placebo, based on eight of them. But they did not—and will
not—reveal which eight, making a mockery of the research principles of transparency and reproducibility. That and other flaws made this “research” an utter failure. But it was widely
publicized in the media—causing bitter consequences for homeopaths and their patients, especially in the UK.